Layne-Williams v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC

Background

Patricia Layne-Williams brought one claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a federal law regulating the use of consumer credit reports. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, a debt collector, obtained Layne-Williams’s credit report from TransUnion while attempting to collect a debt originally owed to CellCo Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless.

A Verizon invoice dated December 28, 2016, showed a past-due previous balance of $838, identified an account number, and listed an address. In 2019, the debt was assigned to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, which placed the account with Radius Global for collection on April 14, 2020. That day, Radius Global requested Layne-Williams’s credit report. The next day, it sent her a collection letter identifying Verizon Wireless, the account number, and an $838 balance.

Layne-Williams said she did not owe Verizon a debt of $838. She filed this action on January 13, 2022. Radius Global moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the outcome.

Legal Standard and Analysis

The FCRA permits a consumer-reporting agency to provide a credit report to a person who intends to use it in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer, including the review or collection of the consumer’s account. The statute also prohibits obtaining a report for a purpose other than one for which the report may lawfully be provided.

The court concluded that the undisputed evidence showed Radius Global obtained the report while collecting a debt purportedly owed by Layne-Williams. That debt-collection activity was a permissible purpose under the FCRA. The court stated that the statute does not require the person obtaining the report to be the original creditor.

The court rejected Layne-Williams’s argument that a debt collector may obtain a report only if the debt is valid and collectible. Her only evidence was a conclusory affidavit statement that she did not owe Verizon $838 or any other amount. The court found that this statement did not explain whether she had a Verizon account, whether she had received or disputed the invoice, or why she believed she owed nothing. The court also noted that Radius Global had evidence that, when it requested the report, it was acting on evidence that a Verizon debt existed.

The court further held that the debt involved a credit transaction. The Verizon invoice showed a past-due balance for services, and the court concluded that a debt incurred for services qualifies as a credit transaction under the statutory definition.

Finally, the court rejected Layne-Williams’s argument that the motion was premature because discovery had not ended. Her attorney’s affidavit merely stated that the parties had conducted little or no discovery. It did not identify the facts sought, explain how those facts would be obtained, or show how they could create a genuine factual dispute, as required when opposing summary judgment based on a need for discovery.

Disposition

Judge Denise Cote granted Radius Global’s April 13 motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Radius Global and close the case.